It looks as if the Clinton-Gore Administration will have to have to find another lackey in its war on American gun and firearms owners. On March 6th, the Citibank Corporation reversed an earlier policy which barred it from “maintaining accounts for businessmen that deal in weapons.” Mark Rogers, a Citibank spokesman, announced the change of company policy explaining that the financial behemoth wanted to be “uniform” in all of its business dealings.

The reason for the corporate giant’s flip-flop began when one of its branches decided to close an account of a Las Vegas firearms operator last month. While the bank contends that it wanted a more consistent corporate policy, the fact is that it was under tremendous pressure by gun owners and their allies with threats of legal action, boycotts, and withdrawal of funds.

Citibank’s capitulation should warm the hearts and embolden the spirit of all gun owners and those who hold the Second Amendment precious. Before an organized effort by gun groups could even be mounted, there was enough spontaneous opposition by the ever vigilant that forced a conglomerate to back down and end its insidious policy.

While all those who wrote, phoned and lobbied against Citibank’s action should breathe a sigh of relief, it should also be an ominous reminder of just how serious the gun grabbers are in their efforts to strip Americans of their rights. Moreover, it is a sign that the enemies of the Second Amendment are getting more reckless and bold in their actions.

Citibank was more than likely encouraged by the Clinton Administration in its actions knowing the incestuous relationship between government and banks. However, using banks in such a manner could dramatically backfire and lead to severe financial ramifications.

Despite the propaganda and public relations gimmickry like “FDIC insured,” financial institutions and especially banks are inherently unstable and susceptible to the slightest financial glitch or fluctuation. A possible boycott or significant withdraw of funds, even from a colossus like Citibank, could not only bring it to its knees, but ignite a general financial panic.

This, no doubt, is why Citibank so quickly recanted before organized resistance galvanized and not the malarkey from its mouthpiece that it wanted to be more “consistent” in its business practices. After the capitulation by Citibank, it is unlikely that such a tact will be tried again. However, Thomas Jefferson’s warning about banks should always be kept in mind: “I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies.”